User talk:Wwwhatsup/Archive 7

Archived August 19 2021

CBGBs

Hello, Thank you for writing regarding CBGBs. The CBGBs entry is missing a hugely important & culturally relevant part. I thought it would be good to add it, since it is really weird that it is not there and high profile, but less important things are included. The Goth scene was underground culture previous to the web, so things like press and media coverage were not part of it or in any way desired. There was even a no camera rule there during the almost 10 year weekly event. There were no other regularly occurring events at CBGBs at all. It's bizarre that something that helped shape the world is being overlooked. Should I ask Steve Blush, a music journalist that was there, to write something? It seems like Wikipedia doesn't want good sources from what you wrote me. I am not sure what I should do. I have noticed that cultural things in wikipedia are very flawed. There is a whole page on Post Punk that is simply wrong, since it is based on agenda ridden journalism and revisionist history. I wanted to edit it, but it is so wrong that it's impossible to know where to start. I am feeling frustrated with this system. I guess I can just continue to let things be flawed and wrong.

Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Ledyard (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Berlin

Thank you for putting the archive link for the Jeff Berlin website. But if you look at it, there is not any content there, all the links seem broken. Am I missing something? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed up or what? I've switched it to the latest good version - June 24 2012. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thank you. I wanted to find useful information for the article but it still does not have any, do you agree? MarioNovi (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Wwwhatsup. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bessy

Hello, Wwwhatsup. You have new messages at Talk:Claude Bessy (singer).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replaceable fair use File:Twink.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Twink.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest, and must declare being paid by ISOC and refrain from editing the ISOC wiki page

You have acknowledged on the ISOC policy list that you are on the payroll of ISOC. As such, you have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, which states such acts, "undermines public confidence [in Wikipedia] and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted." You have made deeply dishonest edits to the Internet Society's wiki page. If you make these edits again, I will report you to the Wikimedia Arbitration Committee to review your edits and your conflict of interest, and provide them with access to the ISOC policy list in order to verify your statement confirming that you are paid by ISOC. Ferdeline (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdeline, I am not on the "payroll" at ISOC. I am a vendor. But I have no problem adding a COI statement on that article. Where my edits differ from yours is that they adhere to WP:NPOV. Wwwhatsup (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdeline (talk • contribs) 20:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Internet Society

Please see my closure of the RfC you opened in December. The article is open for further editing, but please ensure that further changes are either uncontroversial or enjoy consensus. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, Heh. This has been pretty much my aim all along :). Hard to achieve consensus with so few editors, though. Thanks! Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:William Patry.png

The file File:William Patry.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Conflict of Interest

As you are paid by the Internet Society, please refrain from editing the Internet Society article and from commenting on its talk page. Please add a conflict of interest notice to a prominent location on your profile page so all Wikipedia visitors are aware of whom is paying your bills. It is disappointing I must even make this request - again - but you continue not to be forthright about your obvious conflict. Thank you.Ferdeline (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdeline, I edit Wikipedia on my own behalf, not the Internet Society's. I do not have an agenda. My contribution record is evidence of that, unlike yours. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. After the RFC, there was an admin request for consensus editing on that article. I stuck to it. You didn't. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Wallis/Motorhead as discussed on Portobello Shuffle FB

Hi Joly, here are the links:
The other editor reverting my edit
The discussion about Lazza on the other editor's talk page before he blanked it
The discussion on the talkpage

Regards

Romomusicfan (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that Lazza is in there now. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]